"Misery Development Ltd. has been formally asked to resign from commenting on West Games and their Kickstarter project AREAL. Misery Development Ltd. would like to state that whether or not to pledge on a Kickstarter campaign is for the community to decide, and an individual choice."

We're going to post the wolf model soon, though you can catch a sneak peak of it when looking at our Kickstarter video. Specifically, you can see the 3d model when the video shows our team working.

Also, regarding Union Studio, we had a preliminary project that was supposed to be a generic shooter, and we didn't agree with that vision. That project became Survarium from Vostok Games and we founded West Games. Now, as you know, we have Areal in development.

We'll continue to post daily updates, with new images, footage and other cool stuff!

Comments

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1577656602/areal/posts/919071:
"
Thank you to all the news sites that have written about our new teaser, and a special thanks to (among many others) Polygon, Gamer's Hell, PC Games N, Load the Game and Geeky Gadgets for reporting objectively and without any personal bias. Even bigger thanks to the 1,000+ people who have backed us so far. We are so happy to see more than 780 results show up when we type in "Areal Kickstarter" on google's news section! We have raised roughly 76 percent of our base goal, so we really are in the home stretch now! We need you, our backers' help, to get us to at least a hundred percent -- all you need to do is talk about Areal with your friends and share us on social media sites. If everyone got just one friend to contribute, then we would go way beyond our base goal. We have made some mistakes over the course of this Kickstarter, but the fact is that we are trying our hardest, and we hope that you'll help us make Areal a reality.
«

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.

As noted in an OS News article titled "Why People Troll and How to Stop Them" (January 25, 2012), "The traditional definition of trolling includes intent. That is, trolls purposely disrupt forums. This definition is too narrow. Whether someone intends to disrupt a thread or not, the results are the same if they do." Others have addressed the same issue, e.g., Claire Hardaker, in her Ph.D. thesis "Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions", and Dr. Phil. Popular recognition of the existence (and prevalence) of non-deliberate, "accidental trolls", has been documented widely, in sources as diverse as the Urban Dictionary, Nicole Sullivan's keynote speech at the 2012 Fluent Conference, titled "Don't Feed the Trolls" Gizmodo, online opinions on the subject written by Silicon Valley executives and comics.

Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities. Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore it, because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts – hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls".

Early incidents of trolling were considered to be the same as flaming, but this has changed with modern usage by the news media to refer to the creation of any content that targets another person. The Internet dictionary NetLingo suggests there are four grades of trolling: playtime trolling, tactical trolling, strategic trolling, and domination trolling. The relationship between trolling and flaming was observed in open-access forums in California, on a series of modem-linked computers. CommuniTree was begun in 1978 but was closed in 1982 when accessed by high school teenagers, becoming a ground for trashing and abuse. Some psychologists have suggested that flaming would be caused by deindividuation or decreased self-evaluation: the anonymity of online postings would lead to disinhibition amongst individuals Others have suggested that although flaming and trolling is often unpleasant, it may be a form of normative behavior that expresses the social identity of a certain user group According to Tom Postmes, a professor of social and organisational psychology at the universities of Exeter, England, and Groningen, The Netherlands, and the author of Individuality and the Group, who has studied online behavior for 20 years, "Trolls aspire to violence, to the level of trouble they can cause in an environment. They want it to kick off. They want to promote antipathetic emotions of disgust and outrage, which morbidly gives them a sense of pleasure."

In academic literature, the practice of trolling was first documented by Judith Donath (1999). Donath's paper outlines the ambiguity of identity in a disembodied "virtual community" such as Usenet:

In the physical world there is an inherent unity to the self, for the body provides a compelling and convenient definition of identity. The norm is: one body, one identity ... The virtual world is different. It is composed of information rather than matter.

Donath provides a concise overview of identity deception games which trade on the confusion between physical and epistemic community:

Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they – and the troll – understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.

Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling – where the rate of deception is high – many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation.

Susan Herring and colleagues in "Searching for Safety Online: Managing 'Trolling' in a Feminist Forum" point out the difficulty inherent in monitoring trolling and maintaining freedom of speech in online communities: "harassment often arises in spaces known for their freedom, lack of censure, and experimental nature". Free speech may lead to tolerance of trolling behavior, complicating the members' efforts to maintain an open, yet supportive discussion area, especially for sensitive topics such as race, gender, and sexuality.

Here's a thought, pull the likely 1 dollar you pledged so you can rant and rave and be on your way. Otherwise, you're just looking to start trouble. The warning has been sounded, major news outlets have posted about this story. What more are you looking to accomplish other than trolling these people?

@USM-Valor
Cry me a river, this team has had all the opportunity to validate itself, and has done nothing to that extent. Thousands of other kickstarters are backed because they do the exact opposite this one has done, they provide gameplay, original concept art (not old Stalker concept art), they don't show Unity footage while talking about their own original engine, they have realistic not minimal budgets, they don't claim to be part of a project (Stalker) which they have no right to claim or no validity to, they show where their funds go, they don't explain they have a crossplatform engine at $50,000 that can make a finished game in a year (which should be at a level therefore that can show gameplay), they show gameplay and they don't denounce their pledgers as some angry mob even when their questions are perfectly valid.

Like I said, these people won't stop complaining and doubting until the finished game is playable before them, regardless of the fact that this is a Kickstarter. Even then, who knows?

Unfortunately, this Kickstarter is going to have a rough road ahead of it. Adjusting course to try to remedy that will help to some effect, but at a certain point you'll have to move forward as planned and simply ignore those seeking to disrupt the campaign. If the project is good enough to stand on its own, the (legitimate) backers will come.

What proof, Dadita?
Better QUOTE this:
"No! We have never said that we have reached alpha, but people are mentioning it all the time. We are in pre-alpha, meaning before alpha. Pre-production has finished, but we have not reached alpha yet.

Here is a wiktionary definition of pre-alpha:

"A development status given to a program or application that is usually not feature complete, and is not usually released to the public. Developers are usually still deciding on what features the program should have at this status. This status comes before the alpha version, and is the first status given to a program.""

QUOTE :: " The easiest way to put it is that we've completely exhausted our collective piggy banks in getting Areal to the point that it's at. Areal is in pre-alpha, and we've sorted out the A.I., inventory systems and many of the missions."

OK... you people are saying here that you already did a good part of the game.... WHERE IS THE PROOF OF THAT ?!?!?

I have already backed up the game, people here are right about what they are saying, everything about this new project Areal smells fishy from miles away....

I suggest that you people start giving some explains about your plan on making the game, a timeline and some proof of development ! and please explain why 50.000$ ?

How can you possibly believe that we will believe that Areal will be finished by september 2015 when you have NOTHING to prove now, only some drawings!?!?!
When you ask for a kickstarter of 50.000 that doesnt even cover legal fees and taxes, purchase of game engine license to get this going??!

All you people have done so far is to deny outer accusations, WE DONT CARE ABOUT YOU BEING ACCUSASED OF FRAUD! WE WANT PROOF OF DEVELOPEMENT AND NOT SHORT VIDEOS WITH SOME DUDES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have just dug yourselves an even deeper hole with this update. All you can do is point a finger at Misery and show us worthless concept art (which tells me you are barely at the beginning stages of development.)

Oh, you're going to show us a wolf model? Fantastic progress! The $50,000 is plenty to finish an AAA quality game for next-gen consoles, I'm sure. You must be the best developers in the world to be able to develop a project like this with a hundredth of the budget of big AAA studios.

If your intention is to prove your legitimacy and gain the trust of your backers, I suggest you show us some original gameplay footage (which I doubt you have), and address the concerns regarding your minuscule budget. Where is the $50,000 being used, and once that small amount runs out, then what?

People like Misery were never a problem for you. The problem has from the start been that the (potential) backers have serious concerns about this project. You should be spending your energy on addressing those concerns instead of trying to silence the people raising them.

You really need to grow a pair and drop the whole misery issue. They have / had more proof leaning against you for being fraudulent. You don't deserve to keep crying because of what they said. Your credibility is next to none. If anything, you should face legal repercussions of slander / defamation & harassment.

If you want to gain our trust and actually "win" this kickstarter, I suggest giving us gameplay video, in-studio "behind the scenes" development videos, and maybe some free treats. Maybe a proper demo perhaps. Not a demo of a half arsed slightly modified Unity Apocalyptic Asset world. A LARGE part of the internet is looking at you. I wouldn't suggest continuing on with the current path you follow.

Superbacker

Christ on a bike, still nothing to actually show, still no gameplay or what you have developed so far, still just concept art... still carrying on with this Misery thing, acting like an 8 year old trying to counter-bully instead of following the 'Actions speak louder than words' thought process by delivering some much requested content...

The more you speak, the more I refuse to believe that any of you are actual developers.

Bragging that you bullied a long-standing member of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. community into no longer asking questions about your project by having a famous forum member threaten to isolate him from the rest of the community's support? Now claiming that you were also responsible for the original prototype of Survarium? This is getting beyond ridiculous.